• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

ONW said:
So you are a MILF pimp? Nice.
Click to expand...

I assumed Dentist... but I like where you're going. Either way, I'm not clear bcobb has his head around how the 3-1 thing is an awesome profile for his group's rates, but only via hammering some other group with a different age / sex mix. Point being 'I got mine, fuck everybody else' isn't the greatest defense of Obamacare.
 
The proposed "fix" is just going to confuse and complicate things. But may (or may not) provide some political cover for the Dems...that's unfortunately what this is all about. Since the foes are smelling blood and all. Obama just wants to get away from this notion that people are "losing" insurance b/c of the ACA. Really, the thing is that it should've been trumpeted from the start that many in the individual market were going to lose their insurance but be able to buy now on the exchanges something (guaranteed with plenty of sensible protections) that in the end should serve our collective needs better. Etc. This coupled with the unready website has been indeed a "fumble". Hopefully, IMO, not a fatal one to the goal of better reforming our health care system over time.
 
Only "collective good" isn't how the law was sold. It was sold as a means to make healthcare less expensive - for EVERYONE. If you like your coverage and you like your doctor, you can keep them. PERIOD. What has been delivered is nothing close to that. And worst of all, if the whole damn thing collapses (and it seems like that is more than a remote possibility at this stage - although I doubt it will happen) then we have set back any cause of reform for years and years and years to come. Honestly, can you think of a bigger domestic policy fuck up than this thing has become? Millions have no insurance, with each passing day the assurances the web site will be ready by December 1st seem less assured, prices are all over the map and significantly higher for younger Americans - who are necessary for the whole damn thing to work. It's a fucking disaster right now.

I'll give the President this. He seemed earnest today. Contrite. Finally. It took people from his own party pushing him to the brink. And the fix he offered really does nothing to help the situation. How in 30 days is his fix going to get implemented? It won't.

At this stage the only fix that makes any sense is to get the web site fixed so we can see if this thing can work without massive disruption to the overall marketplace. We don't even know if the law will work as intended with a smooth roll out. And it sure as heck feels like we are a long way away from finding that out. But none of the plans to tinker or fix will really fix anything. Not Upton's, not Landrieu's - none of them.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
How does a law get enacted and then the President just gets to say "oops, don't worry about that part of it"? WTF?...
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is rhetorical but the answer is that any president of the USA can't. He's not trying to force insurance companies to resurrect canceled policies or maintain them, he's simply punting the political football by suggesting he'd prefer it to happen. Any president is charged to execute the laws as enacted. For him, I guess the hope is that, going forward, people are stupid enough to believe that insurance companies, that have spent years investing substantial amounts of money, resources, etc. to comply with part of a law that the administration wants to delay for a year, are to blame for future policy terminations/problems.
 
Of course no plan is going to fix everything. And I've already said I don't think Obama's proposal is going to solve much. But no one should be unable to obtain insurance by January...I hope. Unless, of course, you're one of the truly working poor in the states that have refused to expand Medicaid. That's still a problem, unfortunately.

And of course the ACA doesn't fix everything that has been wrong or wanting w/our system to this point. But it is an effort to make the individual market more fair/just compared to the (larger) employed population. To more completely cover our populace with reasonably decent insurance. And to move more in a direction where quality/value in health care delivery will be more important, quantified, and rewarded. Etc. All decent enough goals IMO. Of course it would be "simpler" to go straight to single payer (or some other more monolithic model). But also a hell of a lot more disruptive to our system and its legion of disparately interested parties. The ACA is a heartily incremental move in a needed direction, IMO. Lots more to do, however.
 
No Beatrix, the point is that I have apparantly been subsidizing every body else for the last 30 years and if I catch a break now well good for me. Secondly, my plan is through Interactive Medical, not BCBS, and I find it somewhat amusing that the drop in my plan mirrors the cost I could find on the exchange when factoring in a similar plan that BCBS was offering to a similarly composed small group. Finally, my oldest daughter purchased a plan on the exchange for herself that was 100.00 a month less with better coverage than her previous plan as well as getting a 100.00 insurance suppliment additionaly because her income qualified her. I guess my point is that we cannot be the only people in America that this seems to work for can we?
 
Biggus Deacus said:
Not sure if this is rhetorical but the answer is that any president of the USA can't. He's not trying to force insurance companies to resurrect canceled policies or maintain them, he's simply punting the political football by suggesting he'd prefer it to happen. Any president is charged to execute the laws as enacted. For him, I guess the hope is that, going forward, people are stupid enough to believe that insurance companies, that have spent years investing substantial amounts of money, resources, etc. to comply with part of a law that the administration wants to delay for a year, are to blame for future policy terminations/problems.
Click to expand...


He's just wanting to suggest that cancellations (for now) shouldn't be "because of the ACA". Hoping that cancellation might be seen as for some other reason(s) and that the exchanges will work well enough for many to make any negative fallout bearable for "us". At this point there seems to be a lot of "hope" (and complexity and confusion) in these fixes and calculations. Unfortunately.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
No Beatrix, the point is that I have apparantly been subsidizing every body else for the last 30 years and if I catch a break now well good for me. Secondly, my plan is through Interactive Medical, not BCBS, and I find it somewhat amusing that the drop in my plan mirrors the cost I could find on the exchange when factoring in a similar plan that BCBS was offering to a similarly composed small group. Finally, my oldest daughter purchased a plan on the exchange for herself that was 100.00 a month less with better coverage than her previous plan as well as getting a 100.00 insurance suppliment additionaly because her income qualified her. I guess my point is that we cannot be the only people in America that this seems to work for can we?
Click to expand...


Apparently so...[of course not].
 
An interesting day.

It will be fascinating to see how many insurers make the move to do this, what state Insurance Departments do and what the market reaction is. Typically, a rate change takes 4-6 months to execute. We have 6 weeks.

One good thing here is that the feds recognized the need to possibly enhance the risk corridor programs which will help offset exchange rates which may be too low without this healthy book coming into the pool (its not just the young, its the healthy too). No form committment but a recognition that its needed. This will cost the feds some $.

I do think the change came with a few too many rules and a lot of uncertainty. Its interesting it was a 1 year transitional rule which means people could get re-cancelled next fall right in the middle of the 2014 mid terms.

One personal note...We really need to call out the President for his insistence that these policies are "junk". A few are but the vast majority are very comprehensive and good plans. Thats why people want to keep them.
 
ConnorEl said:
. But it is an effort to make the individual market more fair/just compared to the (larger) employed population. To more completely cover our populace with reasonably decent insurance. And to move more in a direction where quality/value in health care delivery will be more important, quantified, and rewarded. Etc. All decent enough goals IMO. . .
Click to expand...

To the first part, yes I agree, but altruism requires more than "we have to pass this to see what's in it" (or whatever she said) to be executed properly. Most of the key figures carrying the dirty water for this albatross have no stake in the success or failure of it. It was destined to fail because you have people that either didn't read it, were unable to understand it, or both forcing something on a populace that was smart enough to not want it. I mean a guy filled Ted Kennedy's lukewarm seat to end this thing and it was passed in a way that, at best, can be described as "unconventional."
 
CH,

A lot of people happy with their individually-purchased plans haven't had to use them much, I'd suspect. I'm not saying they're all "junk" and if Obama said so he should be called out. But the individual (residual) market has been a bitch for folks not healthy to navigate for a pretty good while I'm pretty sure. People generally don't understand their plans too well until they have to use them...then are not rarely surprised but not favorably.
 
Biggus Deacus said:
To the first part, yes I agree, but altruism requires more than "we have to pass this to see what's in it" (or whatever she said) to be executed properly. Most of the key figures carrying the dirty water for this albatross have no stake in the success or failure of it. It was destined to fail because you have people that either didn't read it, were unable to understand it, or both forcing something on a populace that was smart enough to not want it. I mean a guy filled Ted Kennedy's lukewarm seat to end this thing and it was passed in a way that, at best, can be described as "unconventional."
Click to expand...


Yea, but I blame the Pubs for that more than anyone else.
 
Biggus Deacus said:
But you agree that they are because of the ACA, right? Sorry, new to this thread in case you said it before.
Click to expand...


Many, yes. And, yes I've said this already, it should've been trumpeted (as opposed to the misleading "you can keep your health plan" stuff) that many plans would not be up the the standards of the ACA and be cancelled. And alternative/decent plans be available...and should've been immediately so.
 
Biggus Deacus said:
How about your own words?
Click to expand...

Just for you? What are you asking...why I blame Pubs for their not supporting the ACA? Or any Obama-led effort to move towards health care reform...even one that ended up being essentially Republican in it's ideals. Because they didn't, obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top